Richard Parker (GOV '98), Monica Goodling (Law '99), and Brian Eichelberger (DIV '01)
Yep.
This is embarrassing. The administration should simply push back. We fired them because we can. The previous administration fired 100, we've fired 6. Deal with it.
Its hard to support people who simply won't fight.
AH! Applying the lessons learned from the Libby trial....if we have different memories about a discussion someone can go to jail. I wish all republicans would take the 5th in front of these witch hunting democrats. They are not interested in facts, they are interested in undermining anyone in the Bush administration.
The Fitzy/Walton legacy starts to show its true colors.
Smart woman...I wouldn't talk to those idiots either...not after what happened to Scooter Libby.
Well, at least someone in the administration is doing something.
"I do not recall"
(repeat as necessary)
Yes, the chances of being "Libbied" are high.
Ms. Goodling has wisely decided not to be the next Scooter Libby. Why talk to these ruthless animals?
Incidentally, this is always the Hillary Clinton, Sandy Berger, etc. technique.... whenever hauled before a committee. "I don't recall" "I am not certain" "My memory precludes answering your question."
This is great---I hope all the aides plead the fifth. The committees have already decided someone's head should roll. I wouldn't testify either.
I think she's doing exactly the right thing.
She has a constitutional right. She is taking it. Her spokesmen have already cited the example of Libby, who was convicted for the crime of talking to a prosecutor and making an honest mistake, in a case where no crime had been committed in the first place. That's exactly what we have here.
The news media will go ballistic, because you can't keep writing stories about witnesses who say nothing but "I refuse to answer." Tough. CNN and company are going to have a hard time making news out of this, too. And C-Span will lose a lot of viewers who tire of watching Henry Waxman's nostrils while a series of witnesses repeat, hundreds of times, "I refuse to answer."
Pass the popcorn.
Why won't "I don't recall" work?
Richard Parker (GOV '98), Monica Goodling (Law '99), and Brian Eichelberger (DIV '01)
The should take a lesson from Hillary:
I can't remember,
My brain's in a blender,
it's jello, jello....
I can't rememeber
her lawyer sounds like he's on the ball...pointing out that her answers will be twisted to fit a preconceived agenda.
"Mr. Gonzales, we have reason to believe you are not an honest man."
"Why Senators, I am every bit as honest as the best of you."
Mr. Gonzales, that makes you a lying sack of $hit and we aim to see you pay for it."
I guess that's what disgusts me the most - those who govern us are some of the seediest scoundrels that ever walked the face of the earth and they have the hubris to opine that others are morally and ethically deficient.
I'm no expert, but I don't think this helps the administration one bit. She is not one of the people covered by executive privilege. I believe that if she is offered immunity from prosecution for her testimony, that removes the potential for self-incrimination and she will be forced to testify (and I think the immunity will be contingent upon answers that don't consist of "I don't remember"). For the Democrats, this may fall under the category of letting the small fish go free in order to catch the bigger fish.
" I am sorry Senator, but due to the witch hunt mentality of this committee and the fact that I may say something that could bring perjury charges against me for a faulty memory, I invoke my 5th Amendment Rights against self -incrimination."
The chilling effect of the Libby conviction. Perjury trap. Why say anything if you know you can be prosecuted for it for political purposes? Dems have proved that they will use the justice system to destroy those that disagree with them.
Simply use the phrase that Hillary used when she was being quizzed by Congress under oath:
"I have no independent recollection of that."
"I don't remember"
Used them many many times.